This is another example of an ill-thought out policy implemented by a dysfunctional government.

The Home Office introduces policies that are completely opposite to what the Business department and the PM are promoting.

While the government has been talking about re-balancing the economy by increasing exports - especially to the emerging markets, the Home Office tries to scupper the programme by coming up with idiotic policies.

For example, Paris attracts one million Chinese tourists per year, compared with just 110,000 Chinese visitors to London.

Britain's tourist and retail authorities have long warned that the government's tough visa restrictions mean the UK is losing out on a growing appetite for international travel among increasingly affluent Chinese, to the tune of £1.2bn a year.

I think India should charge the UK for overstaying their welcome for the previous 250 years or so. That + the crown jewels they took from us should equal out the cost of the 3000 pound bond for Indians travelling to the UK.

Presumably, the British should then use the money Norway stole from them during the Viking raids? Or perhaps we can accept bygones are bygones and work out what we need to do going forward. If Indian nationals did not disproportionately overstay, this would not be needed.

The latest spending review highlighted that 500,000 new primary school places will be needed in the near future, yet the Economist continues with its Pavlovian 'immigration is always good' line.
2.2 million came in 1997-2010 yet there was no plan to build extra capacity in hospitals, schools or housing. Mr Cruddas (Labour's policy chief) said that his constituents' wages were falling & there was pressure on hospitals & schools. A few weeks later he was at a rally calling for amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants - another knee-jerker.
Mr Bagheot was in favour of democracy i.e. having electorate decide if massive change should happen to their country. Somewhere aslong the way the Economist has jettisoned that.

I'm British, work across the BRICS, and am dismayed at the "Little England" approach that so many UK politicians take, of which this half-baked visa bond idea is just the latest example.

The UK economy needs all the investment it can get; as Tata has shown, if it is to come from anywhere, it will come from high-growth countries like India. It's time UK politicians started to educate the UK public about the need to do everything we can to promote inward investment of both money and talent, instead of pandering to an ill-informed semi-racist media.

People - especially in high-growth MICS - have choices about where they invest, where they study and where they go on holiday. The already know that the UK has bad weather and (since last year) they know it is unwelcoming to students. Now, thanks to this bond scheme, they'll also discover the UK does not even want short-term visitors with money.

It's time UK politicians realized that the world is not banging on our door wanting to come to us. If we are to stand any chance of thriving in the 21st century we need to do all we can to attract the world - and its money - to our shores.

As Theresa May continues to strive to capture votes from the UKIP, whose leader increasingly resembles the Harry Potter character Kreacher muttering endlessly about "blood traitors" and the like, she is in danger of becoming a caricature herself - perhaps Doris Umbridge. Aside from the rational question of whether such a bond would in fact deter anyone from over-staying a visa there's the question of cost. It would entail an expenditure of many millions to develop the necessary systems and processes; this cost is unlikely to be defrayed by the revenue resulting from a few hundred over-stayers each year. So, May's Great Big Plan (i) alienates potential trading partners, (ii) will cost a fortune to implement and run, and (iii) is unlikely to deter many people anyway.

This is the future of Conservatism? Really? Frankly I think the Muppets could do a more creditable job and Miss Piggy would make a far better Home Secretary.